Well I want to start this page cause it seems like I have an opinion on everything im just one man and want to voice my opinions to others and see what people think I will answer an question and debate anyone that has an argument. Im an atheist, and think for myself. I know that all atheist don't think alike and like to compare thoughts and give my views and reasons why. So feel free to ask me my opinion and open up a debate. Anything from abortions to capital punishment, drugs and the separation of church and state. So please feel free tobvoice your own opinions and send some topics to this forum. I would like to thank everyone for there time.
Stev13jay
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 02, 2011, 08:27:29 AM
Well I want to start this page cause it seems like I have an opinion on everything
Would you consider al dante pasta to be undercooked?
Most definitely not its perfect I went through a year of cooking classes and that's how I was taught
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 02, 2011, 09:06:56 AM
Most definitely not its perfect I went through a year of cooking classes and that's how I was taught
What a perfect response! Love it :D
Quote from: Stevil on November 02, 2011, 09:03:47 AM
Would you consider al dante pasta to be undercooked?
Al Dante? Infernal stuff.
Please do not joke about the Holy Food; our Noodly Lord boiled for your sins. ;D
Stev13jay, can a Pastafarian be an atheist, or vice versa?
Quote from: Ildiko on November 02, 2011, 11:44:54 AM
Al Dante? Infernal stuff.
They ought to name some dish after me too... Kebab D'Asmodeani, for instane... Has nice ring to it, but those who name things never listen. :(
Quote from: Asmodean on November 02, 2011, 01:38:07 PM
Quote from: Ildiko on November 02, 2011, 11:44:54 AM
Al Dante? Infernal stuff.
They ought to name some dish after me too... Kebab D'Asmodeani, for instane... Has nice ring to it, but those who name things never listen. :(
Would that be grey lumps on a stick? Doesn't sound very appealing...
Uh... Have you SEEN the sort of crap that normally goes inta' ye regular street vendor variety kebab..? If that "meat" was just gray, I'd call it edible.
And of course, Kebab D'Asmo would be gray with lotsa' Habanero peppers for spicing.
Actually that grey lump looks like an onion enough. Could pass for one ;D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 06:56:22 PM
Actually that grey lump looks like an onion enough. Could pass for one ;D
Add some of Asmo's patented bitterness, and it sure can ;D
Quote from: Asmodean on November 02, 2011, 09:07:53 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 06:56:22 PM
Actually that grey lump looks like an onion enough. Could pass for one ;D
Add some of Asmo's patented bitterness, and it sure can ;D
Sometimes you make people cry!
Poor Steve, starts a thread and we go and de-rail it.
Serious question. Will you send your kid to school or home school? What factors will influence your choice.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 02, 2011, 10:56:19 PM
Sometimes you make people cry!
Dung beatles roll dung, dogs lick their butts and Asmodeans do what Asmodeans do. ;D
Quote from: OldGit on November 02, 2011, 01:36:36 PM
Please do not joke about the Holy Food; our Noodly Lord boiled for your sins. ;D
Stev13jay, can a Pastafarian be an atheist, or vice versa?
Sell that's sort of a tough question according to pastafarians you can be but by definition of atheism you don't believe in a god or gods so to be pastafarian and believe in the flying spaghetti monster as a creator or god would contradict being an atheist but if you look at the fsm as a parody religion like myself you can be but according to he creator of the fsm or founder or the one who discovered it claims it as real religion so in my opinion a pastafarian can be atheist but a true atheist wouldn't believe in the fsm kind of contradicting I hope that makes since
Quote from: Tank on November 02, 2011, 10:59:15 PM
Poor Steve, starts a thread and we go and de-rail it.
Serious question. Will you send your kid to school or home school? What factors will influence your choice.
As of right now I plan on sending my son to public school my sons very young and I have time to decide. Some factors that weight in are the separation of church and state in public school. I don't think the government needs to be preaching to our kids. Teach children about religion or notbisnup to the parents. Also another factor is test scores ibwould really like yo find a private non religious school but in my area I can't find one. I hope that answers your question.
Quote from: Stev13jay
Sell that's sort of a tough question according to pastafarians you can be but by definition of atheism you don't believe in a god or gods so to be pastafarian and believe in the flying spaghetti monster as a creator or god would contradict being an atheist but if you look at the fsm as a parody religion like myself you can be but according to he creator of the fsm or founder or the one who discovered it claims it as real religion so in my opinion a pastafarian can be atheist but a true atheist wouldn't believe in the fsm kind of contradicting I hope that makes since
Steve, that's a sensible answer, but - if I might offer a bit of well-meant advice - some basic punctuation would make it so much easier to read.
Sell, that's sort of a tough question. According to pastafarians you can be, but by definition of atheism you don't believe in a god or gods. So, to be pastafarian and believe in the flying spaghetti monster as a creator or god would contradict being an atheist; but if you look at the fsm as a parody religion - like myself - you can be, but according to the .....I do hope you don't mind my doing that as an example.
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 02, 2011, 11:29:24 PM
Quote from: OldGit on November 02, 2011, 01:36:36 PM
Please do not joke about the Holy Food; our Noodly Lord boiled for your sins. ;D
Stev13jay, can a Pastafarian be an atheist, or vice versa?
Sell that's sort of a tough question according to pastafarians you can be but by definition of atheism you don't believe in a god or gods so to be pastafarian and believe in the flying spaghetti monster as a creator or god would contradict being an atheist but if you look at the fsm as a parody religion like myself you can be but according to he creator of the fsm or founder or the one who discovered it claims it as real religion so in my opinion a pastafarian can be atheist but a true atheist wouldn't believe in the fsm kind of contradicting I hope that makes since
Do you believe in periods?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 04, 2011, 01:53:40 AM
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 02, 2011, 11:29:24 PM
Quote from: OldGit on November 02, 2011, 01:36:36 PM
Please do not joke about the Holy Food; our Noodly Lord boiled for your sins. ;D
Stev13jay, can a Pastafarian be an atheist, or vice versa?
Sell that's sort of a tough question according to pastafarians you can be but by definition of atheism you don't believe in a god or gods so to be pastafarian and believe in the flying spaghetti monster as a creator or god would contradict being an atheist but if you look at the fsm as a parody religion like myself you can be but according to he creator of the fsm or founder or the one who discovered it claims it as real religion so in my opinion a pastafarian can be atheist but a true atheist wouldn't believe in the fsm kind of contradicting I hope that makes since
Do you believe in periods?
He has a wife and a son so I woulld think so.
Periods? Female periods yes. Periods of time yes pretty much any periods yes. The ones at the end of my sentence yes. So my answer is yes all around.
Well it seems like I've been getting a few questions on here. I thought I might try to ask everyone on here a question. As atheist what is everyones opinion on gay marriage? I've debated my wife about this we are both atheist and share different opinions about this subject. So let me hear all yours. Thanks for your time.
There's another thread about this, but I am pro-gay marriage!
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 05, 2011, 01:06:14 AM
There's another thread about this
Several, in fact... Or so I seem to remember.
In any case, I'm not exactly pro mattiage in general (Why bother?), but I do not discriminate. If someone wants it, no matter whether gay, straight, transgendered, bisexual or whatever, let them have it, I say.
If any two (or more) people want to stick a public label on their relationship they are perfectly entitled to do so; whatever that label may be, none of my business or concern as it has no material impact on me or anybody else.
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 05, 2011, 12:41:00 AM
Well it seems like I've been getting a few questions on here. I thought I might try to ask everyone on here a question. As atheist what is everyones opinion on gay marriage? I've debated my wife about this we are both atheist and share different opinions about this subject. So let me hear all yours. Thanks for your time.
I don't think too many people on this forum are going to have a problem with gay marriage. Does that agree with your position or your wife's position? Do you actually debate her? Who moderates?
Well it seems like everyone pretty much agree about gay marriage, which means everyone agrees with me. As to who moderates my wife and myself when we debate no one. It end with my wife saying she doesn't want to hear my reasoning . She believes what she does and doesn't like to debate at all actually. So it doesn't go far, we just agree to disagree.
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 05, 2011, 02:57:52 PM
Well it seems like everyone pretty much agree about gay marriage, which means everyone agrees with me. As to who moderates my wife and myself when we debate no one. It end with my wife saying she doesn't want to hear my reasoning . She believes what she does and doesn't like to debate at all actually. So it doesn't go far, we just agree to disagree.
Time for a couple of blatantly sexist jokes:
"There are two theories about arguing with a woman - and both of them are wrong."
"The woman always gets the last word in an argument. If the man says anything after that, it's just the start of another argument."
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 05, 2011, 06:31:48 PM
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 05, 2011, 02:57:52 PM
Well it seems like everyone pretty much agree about gay marriage, which means everyone agrees with me. As to who moderates my wife and myself when we debate no one. It end with my wife saying she doesn't want to hear my reasoning . She believes what she does and doesn't like to debate at all actually. So it doesn't go far, we just agree to disagree.
Time for a couple of blatantly sexist jokes:
"There are two theories about arguing with a woman - and both of them are wrong."
"The woman always gets the last word in an argument. If the man says anything after that, it's just the start of another argument."
If they're blatantly sexist, why do you think they're okay? If I said "here are some blatantly racist jokes" should I still expect everyone to laugh?
Seriously, between this, the "end of the male" thread you started, and some of the other comments you made, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you have unresolved issues towards women.
*sits and waits for "humourless feminist" comments*
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 05, 2011, 07:20:26 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 05, 2011, 06:31:48 PM
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 05, 2011, 02:57:52 PM
Well it seems like everyone pretty much agree about gay marriage, which means everyone agrees with me. As to who moderates my wife and myself when we debate no one. It end with my wife saying she doesn't want to hear my reasoning . She believes what she does and doesn't like to debate at all actually. So it doesn't go far, we just agree to disagree.
Time for a couple of blatantly sexist jokes:
"There are two theories about arguing with a woman - and both of them are wrong."
"The woman always gets the last word in an argument. If the man says anything after that, it's just the start of another argument."
If they're blatantly sexist, why do you think they're okay? If I said "here are some blatantly racist jokes" should I still expect everyone to laugh?
Seriously, between this, the "end of the male" thread you started, and some of the other comments you made, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you have unresolved issues towards women.
*sits and waits for "humourless feminist" comments*
Apparently my sense of humor and what I am used to doesn't play well here. I work with a number of women in an office, and generally there is fairly good-natured office banter about this subject. My typical female co-worker would simply use my jokes as an opportunity to say something about men. My apologies for offending you. I hereby banish myself to further sensitivity training.
I appreciate your response, and I know it's hard to draw the line on being "PC" (especially on the internet), so thanks for that :)
I just think the whole "battle of sexes" thing does a disservice to everyone. I work with a lot of women too (everyone in my clinic is a woman, actually) and I hate it when they get on with man bashing. I have to sit and bite my tongue when they talk about "being whiny like a man" and garbage like that. They expect me to shit-talk my husband a lot, and they get annoyed when I won't, so I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine, coming from anyone.
Anyhoo,
Back to your regularly scheduled thread!
Quote from: JulietI just think the whole "battle of sexes" thing does a disservice to everyone.
Me too! And I speak as one who has been happily married for over forty years.
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 05, 2011, 12:41:00 AM
Well it seems like I've been getting a few questions on here. I thought I might try to ask everyone on here a question. As atheist what is everyones opinion on gay marriage? I've debated my wife about this we are both atheist and share different opinions about this subject. So let me hear all yours. Thanks for your time.
The government shouldn't have any say in whether or not a couple can marry, and it shouldn't have any say in who the church is obligated to marry.
*submits to congress for approval
Quote from: MinnesotaMike on November 06, 2011, 06:52:57 PM
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 05, 2011, 12:41:00 AM
Well it seems like I've been getting a few questions on here. I thought I might try to ask everyone on here a question. As atheist what is everyones opinion on gay marriage? I've debated my wife about this we are both atheist and share different opinions about this subject. So let me hear all yours. Thanks for your time.
The government shouldn't have any say in whether or not a couple can marry, and it shouldn't have any say in who the church is obligated to marry.
*submits to congress for approval
I'm 100% agreeing here just because "your" church say some people can't marry doesn't mean it should affect everyone.
Well one thing that isn't as touchy, I want to ask everyone is in reference to decriminalization of drugs. In my opinion all drugs need to be decriminalized, in a world that has access to the information everyone has at least in the US. In school (public school) I was taught about all drugs there affects and how addicting they are. We have libraries all throughout the US you can look up books and use the internet to do all the research you want. Also if you've ever watched television they play enough anti drug commercials to make you think that everyone on a street corner is selling drugs. So enough of my ranting, on to my question. If crack was in legal and sold in stores would you buy it and use it? This is a serious question I use it for debating people, I believe if your an informed person you can make the informed decision about using drugs. Im not saying for people to go out and use drugs but if your informed know the risks I think they have the right to make the informed decision themselves. So let me know what you think.
I think the problem that I have with drugs is that some (most?) of them are highly refined, highly concentrated and highly processed. I don't like eating refined sugar, so I can't see me going to the grocery store and buying some cocaine, even if it was available.
To elaborate, I would never try heroin, but if I could get some old-fashioned smokable opium, I'm sure I would try it. If you smoke too much opium, you fall asleep. If you take too much herion, well, you die. Marijuana, shrooms and those kinds of things I have no problem with, either, and I think regulating them in a proper market would be beneficial in a lot of ways. If weed were taxable, the government could make a ton of money!
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 07, 2011, 01:14:45 AM
In my opinion all drugs need to be decriminalized, in a world that has access to the information everyone has at least in the US. In school (public school) I was taught about all drugs there affects and how addicting they are.
There is a ton of misinformation on illegal drugs shown in public schools, as their goal is to discourage people from using them, not give a proper education on the matter. It won't matter if the government were to legalize and regulate something as addictive as, say, methamphetamine, because the ruthless pursuit of the high would not be contained within legal boundaries. Drugs need to be legalized firstly based on their physical addiction status, that is to say how addicting a certain amount of the drug is. Caffeine is physically addictive, but the powers that be at Pepsi are not allowed to dump as much as they want into each can to keep it legal, so in a way this regulation is already enacted and shown as effective. Second, there would need to be a way to rank them on the adverse health effects a certain amount of the drug has. If there was an agreed upon way of ranking how dangerous a drug is, I think there could be a legal limit set on how much of what would be available for purchase. Throwing all drugs in the same boat of legal/illegal seems like a potentially dangerous proposition.
Quote from: MinnesotaMike on November 07, 2011, 05:27:50 AM
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 07, 2011, 01:14:45 AM
In my opinion all drugs need to be decriminalized, in a world that has access to the information everyone has at least in the US. In school (public school) I was taught about all drugs there affects and how addicting they are.
There is a ton of misinformation on illegal drugs shown in public schools, as their goal is to discourage people from using them, not give a proper education on the matter. It won't matter if the government were to legalize and regulate something as addictive as, say, methamphetamine, because the ruthless pursuit of the high would not be contained within legal boundaries. Drugs need to be legalized firstly based on their physical addiction status, that is to say how addicting a certain amount of the drug is. Caffeine is physically addictive, but the powers that be at Pepsi are wwnot allowed to dump as much as they want into each can to keep it legal, so in a way this regulation is already enacted and shown as effective. Second, there would need to be a way to rank them on the adverse health effects a certain amount of the drug has. If there was an agreed upon way of ranking how dangerous a drug is, I think there could be a legal limit set on how much of what would be available for purchase. Throwing all drugs in the same boat of legal/illegal seems like a potentially dangerous proposition.
Well I do like your idea about the regulations you mentioned, also I agree with the guy above your post (sorry I didn't get the s/n im using my phone) about the taxation and creating funds. In California marijuana is there most profitable cash crop, so there's definitely money to be made. Also I read that 50% of americans think we should legalize medical and/or recreational use of marijuana. Beside the point the grading of the drugs on how powerful they are and how addicting they are is a great idea. Also regulation on how potent they can be sounds good. But on the other hand some drugs might just be to powerful to legalize. But like the one guy said opium, mushrooms, marijuana and I think there was one more I don't remember but I do think at least these few drugs need to be legalized, taxed and regulated. I would like to thank both of you for your input.
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 07, 2011, 07:16:33 AM
Well I do like your idea about the regulations you mentioned, also I agree with the guy above your post (sorry I didn't get the s/n im using my phone)
Gal ;) Its'okay
Well here comes another touchy subject, I don't even know if ill get a response but I wanted to get peoples thoughts on abortion. I know this is touchy to a lot of people but I want to hear what people think and why.
It's when a pregnancy is deliberately terminated. That is what I think about it because that is what it is.
Relevant:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lgufeqNQDE1qdvk1ho1_500.png&hash=a9070f192e88713a1225b28e465f470543b4a62d)
As a person, I don't think the government should have any say in what's legal (in terms of abortion) during the germinal stage of prenatal development. As a male, that's as far as my opinion goes on the subject. :-\
Quote from: MinnesotaMike on November 09, 2011, 07:09:25 AM
As a person, I don't think the government should have any say in what's legal (in terms of abortion) during the germinal stage of prenatal development. As a male, that's as far as my opinion goes on the subject. :-\
The government is
exactly who should get that finger out of their ass and legalize it, actually. In the US, make it a federal law, perhaps..?
Who do you think should have a say in what is legal and what not when it comes to abortion? The individual gynecologist? The religious leader? The individual parent?
I'm pro-choice and having a baby has actually made me more pro-choice.
Carrying and delivering a baby is a huge strain on your body (I broke my tail-bone delivering my son). There were a couple of times, when I was pregnant, in which I thought it would be utterly barbaric to force someone to carry a child that they didn't want. It's not a light thing to say "oh just have the baby and give it away" - having a baby was one of the biggest psychological and physical undertakings I've ever gone through.
That being said, I think the argument is going to come down to your definition of "human life" - If you believe new life exists at conception, you'll likely be "pro-life", if you don't, you'll likely be "pro-choice". I don't find it convincing to potentially ruin lives over a clump of cells which has no awareness/no real human likeness. I don't find the argument for "potential" to convincing, at all, either. Everything has the potential to be something else - that doesn't mean that it is the same thing, or ever will be. Destroying a seed is not the same thing as tearing down a 200 year old red-wood tree.
I do think that if you are going to get an abortion, the earlier you do it, the better. For a host of reasons.
Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2011, 07:24:24 AM
Quote from: MinnesotaMike on November 09, 2011, 07:09:25 AM
As a person, I don't think the government should have any say in what's legal (in terms of abortion) during the germinal stage of prenatal development. As a male, that's as far as my opinion goes on the subject. :-\
The government is exactly who should get that finger out of their ass and legalize it, actually. In the US, make it a federal law, perhaps..?
Who do you think should have a say in what is legal and what not when it comes to abortion? The individual gynecologist? The religious leader? The individual parent?
I wrote that in context of the government being the entity that makes laws. To rephrase: as a starting point, abortion shouldn't be illegal under any circumstance during the germinal stage of pregnancy. Since this is a women's health issue (assuming the talk I got from my parents is correct), I don't like to go beyond that point with my input.
Quote from: Asmodean on November 02, 2011, 01:38:07 PM
They ought to name some dish after me too... Kebab D'Asmodeani, for instance... Has nice ring to it, but those who name things never listen. :(
One day, I'll name something that, just for you. :) It really does have a nice ring to it... D'Asmodeani... I like it. :D
And as for the gay marriage topic, I agree with MinnesotaMike.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 09, 2011, 09:18:45 AM
That being said, I think the argument is going to come down to your definition of "human life" - If you believe new life exists at conception, you'll likely be "pro-life", if you don't, you'll likely be "pro-choice".
I think that human life begins with conception, for a variety of reasons, but I still come down on the pro-choice side. Generally, I like government to stay out of my life, and I highly value individual liberty. A pregnant woman is just as capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion as a government is. She knows more of the facts about that particular pregnancy, and her moral capacity should be honored. I do have a problem with a very late term abortion in which a healthy fetus is fully viable, unless there are serious safety and health issues involved, but other than that it should be left to the woman.
There are other situations in which we terminate the life of an innocent fetus and almost nothing is said about it. How many pregnant women have been killed, along with their innocent fetuses, in war? Many of those who claim to be pro-life have no problem with Hiroshima. That seems a little inconsistent. I think its better to say that there are no absolutes in these matters, that competing principles and interests have to be balanced, and that the pregnant woman herself is in the best position to be the moral agent who makes the decision.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 09, 2011, 09:18:45 AM
That being said, I think the argument is going to come down to your definition of "human life" - If you believe new life exists at conception, you'll likely be "pro-life", if you don't, you'll likely be "pro-choice".
I agree with that statement. I, personally, am pro-life and I do believe that new life begins after conception.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 11, 2011, 09:35:31 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 09, 2011, 09:18:45 AM
That being said, I think the argument is going to come down to your definition of "human life" - If you believe new life exists at conception, you'll likely be "pro-life", if you don't, you'll likely be "pro-choice".
I think that human life begins with conception, for a variety of reasons, but I still come down on the pro-choice side. Generally, I like government to stay out of my life, and I highly value individual liberty. A pregnant woman is just as capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion as a government is. She knows more of the facts about that particular pregnancy, and her moral capacity should be honored. I do have a problem with a very late term abortion in which a healthy fetus is fully viable, unless there are serious safety and health issues involved, but other than that it should be left to the woman.
There are other situations in which we terminate the life of an innocent fetus and almost nothing is said about it. How many pregnant women have been killed, along with their innocent fetuses, in war? Many of those who claim to be pro-life have no problem with Hiroshima. That seems a little inconsistent. I think its better to say that there are no absolutes in these matters, that competing principles and interests have to be balanced, and that the pregnant woman herself is in the best position to be the moral agent who makes the decision.
I know we don't see eye-to-eye on every topic here, but I have to say, I have a lot of respect for this response :)
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 11, 2011, 11:43:53 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 11, 2011, 09:35:31 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 09, 2011, 09:18:45 AM
That being said, I think the argument is going to come down to your definition of "human life" - If you believe new life exists at conception, you'll likely be "pro-life", if you don't, you'll likely be "pro-choice".
I think that human life begins with conception, for a variety of reasons, but I still come down on the pro-choice side. Generally, I like government to stay out of my life, and I highly value individual liberty. A pregnant woman is just as capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion as a government is. She knows more of the facts about that particular pregnancy, and her moral capacity should be honored. I do have a problem with a very late term abortion in which a healthy fetus is fully viable, unless there are serious safety and health issues involved, but other than that it should be left to the woman.
There are other situations in which we terminate the life of an innocent fetus and almost nothing is said about it. How many pregnant women have been killed, along with their innocent fetuses, in war? Many of those who claim to be pro-life have no problem with Hiroshima. That seems a little inconsistent. I think its better to say that there are no absolutes in these matters, that competing principles and interests have to be balanced, and that the pregnant woman herself is in the best position to be the moral agent who makes the decision.
I know we don't see eye-to-eye on every topic here, but I have to say, I have a lot of respect for this response :)
Going back and reading my post, I would like to amend this statement: "A pregnant woman is just as capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion as a government is." Given the dysfunctionality of governments around the world, I should have said that "a pregnant woman is more capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion than a government is."
I'm against abortion personally, although the woman carries the baby and has the right to choose.
One of my children was "an accident" and abortion was never considered by my wife nor I.
I'd just feel uncomfortable with killing my own unborn child! What right do I have to decide whether it lives or dies? Obviously though that is my own personal feeling and you can't tell everybody they can't decide for themselves. You can have circumstances where a child may be massively handicapped and likely to have a miserable existence, the child may be likely to die, the pregnancy might be a result of rape, you can't take the abortion choice away from those people.
QuoteGoing back and reading my post, I would like to amend this statement: "A pregnant woman is just as capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion as a government is." Given the dysfunctionality of governments around the world, I should have said that "a pregnant woman is more capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion than a government is."
There was a time in our nation's history when similar arguments were in play: "A landholder is more capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have a slave than a government is". Both arguments abdicated responsibility for the liberty of the helpless to those for whom oppression of the helpless yielded a benefit.
I do believe life begins at conception, and that stable households can offer an alternative to poor women that promotes life AND gets the woman into a more stable, hopeful situation by paying for the adoption through cash, addiction treatment, housing, food, job training, etc. To simply give a poor woman her fifth free abortion and send her on her way, as our country currently does, is tantamount to eugenics.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 02:27:12 AM
You can have circumstances where a child may be massively handicapped and likely to have a miserable existence, the child may be likely to die, the pregnancy might be a result of rape, you can't take the abortion choice away from those people.
I understande that there are circumstances, but still, (and this in my opinion) in the case of rape, the child didn't choose for it's father to be a rapist as much as she didn't choose for him to rape her, but shit does happen. That doesn't mean that killing the child's going to do any good. Even in cases where it comes down to not being able to provide for the child, she could birth it then give it up for adoption. And as for the risk of the child being severely handicapped, on the surface it may seem like a good reason to have an abortion, but what about those unexplainable medical mysteries where the child comes out fine? I was one one those. You think my mom should have had an abortion, just because the doctors' said that I was going to live a miserable life?
Quote from: bandit4god on November 12, 2011, 02:31:51 AM
QuoteGoing back and reading my post, I would like to amend this statement: "A pregnant woman is just as capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion as a government is." Given the dysfunctionality of governments around the world, I should have said that "a pregnant woman is more capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion than a government is."
There was a time in our nation's history when similar arguments were in play: "A landholder is more capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have a slave than a government is". Both arguments abdicated responsibility for the liberty of the helpless to those for whom oppression of the helpless yielded a benefit.
I do believe life begins at conception, and that stable households can offer an alternative to poor women that promotes life AND gets the woman into a more stable, hopeful situation by paying for the adoption through cash, addiction treatment, housing, food, job training, etc. To simply give a poor woman her fifth free abortion and send her on her way, as our country currently does, is tantamount to eugenics.
Uhh, you know that rich, stable women get abortions too, right.
Some women just don't
want babies.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 02:38:30 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 02:27:12 AM
You can have circumstances where a child may be massively handicapped and likely to have a miserable existence, the child may be likely to die, the pregnancy might be a result of rape, you can't take the abortion choice away from those people.
I understande that there are circumstances, but still, (and this in my opinion) in the case of rape, the child didn't choose for it's father to be a rapist as much as she didn't choose for him to rape her, but shit does happen. That doesn't mean that killing the child's going to do any good. Even in cases where it comes down to not being able to provide for the child, she could birth it then give it up for adoption. And as for the risk of the child being severely handicapped, on the surface it may seem like a good reason to have an abortion, but what about those unexplainable medical mysteries where the child comes out fine? I was one one those. You think my mom should have had an abortion, just because the doctors' said that I was going to live a miserable life?
Yeah, the thing is, a tiny group of cells isn't a child. Even if you argue that it's "life", I'll let that one go, but it is NOT a child. It's not cute, it's not thinking. What grows in a woman's uterus the first several weeks of her pregnancy in no real way resembles a human in any real sense.
And, as I wrote before, saying "oh, just adopt it" is completely dismissive of what a woman actually goes through. Having a baby is a big deal! You can die! You can have complications that can follow you for the rest of your life! Personally, I had second degree tearing, broke my tail bone and suffered "moderate" (though it did not feel like it at the time) post-partum depression after giving birth to my son. I still can't sit on a hard chair for more than 20 minutes without the bottom of my spine causing me severe pain and I don't know if it will ever go away.
And my story is mild.
No one should have to go through that unless they want to. Unless it is a free choice made out of love and commitment to the being you are bringing into the already overpopulated world. And the argument that a woman should go through that, after having been raped, because a tiny clump of cells MIGHT turn into a living human several months down the road is completely abhorrent to my mind.
EDIT: FYI, I am married, in a relatively stable financial situation, already have one child. But if I got pregnant tomorrow, would I have an abortion? Yes. I would. And my husband would be 100% on board.
Double edit: Though I should add, we are currently on two forms of birth control and my husband is going to be getting a vasectomy within the forsee-able future, so it would be a freak 1,000,000-1 shot of that actually happening. I just wanted to make it clear that abortion is my absolute last resort, but I would take it in a heart beat.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 02:38:30 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 02:27:12 AM
You can have circumstances where a child may be massively handicapped and likely to have a miserable existence, the child may be likely to die, the pregnancy might be a result of rape, you can't take the abortion choice away from those people.
I understande that there are circumstances, but still, (and this in my opinion) in the case of rape, the child didn't choose for it's father to be a rapist as much as she didn't choose for him to rape her, but shit does happen. That doesn't mean that killing the child's going to do any good. Even in cases where it comes down to not being able to provide for the child, she could birth it then give it up for adoption. And as for the risk of the child being severely handicapped, on the surface it may seem like a good reason to have an abortion, but what about those unexplainable medical mysteries where the child comes out fine? I was one one those. You think my mom should have had an abortion, just because the doctors' said that I was going to live a miserable life?
No killing a child won't do it any good, and a child didn't choose a rapist to be it's father, BUT you have to think of the mother here, isn't being raped bad enough? She may (or may not) regard having to carry a child that she may (or may not) hate for 9 months as an extra and unfair punishment. Then the pain of labour reminding her what happened? Then the trauma of giving the child up for adoption.
Choice has to be available to the woman.
For your own little story at the end there, you said on another topic that doctors said you might die, your mother might die, and neither of you did die- thus goddidit - instead of simply understanding that the doctors assessed the situation wrong...
Now for this topic you are using the doctors being wrong to make a point about how you could have been aborted, which is fair enough.
The trouble is in the other topic you assumed the doctors as certainly correct and therefore god, who isn't real, performed a miracle.
It can't be both, which is it?
PS you'll be an atheist by 16.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 02:51:44 AM
PS you'll be an atheist by 16.
I was trying to see things from your perspective. And as for the atheist by 16, you have about 5 months. Good luck. :)
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 02:55:45 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 02:51:44 AM
PS you'll be an atheist by 16.
I was trying to see things from your perspective. And as for the atheist by 16, you have about 5 months. Good luck. :)
No such thing as luck.
Deep down the cogs are turning and that's why you're here. Deep down you know reality but can't quite accept it yet.
Don't forget to ponder what I just said about your hypocrisy regarding your mom's dangerous pregnacy, either goddidit or the doctors were wrong...
You've already accepted that the doctors were wrong because you stated when trying to make a point about abortion that if your mother had listened to the doctors you wouldn't be here. The thing is, they called it wrong, therefore no need for a miracle for you to be here, and that is one proof of your god out of the window. He just wasn't required.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:01:20 AM
No such thing as luck.
Deep down the cogs are turning and that's why you're here. Deep down you know reality but can't quite accept it yet.
Don't forget to ponder what I just said about your hypocrisy regarding your mom's dangerous pregnancy, either God did it or the doctors were wrong...
You don;t believe in God, you don't believe in luck... What
do you believe in? :D And as for why I'm here... well, that's a story for another time. ;)
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 03:04:38 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:01:20 AM
No such thing as luck.
Deep down the cogs are turning and that's why you're here. Deep down you know reality but can't quite accept it yet.
Don't forget to ponder what I just said about your hypocrisy regarding your mom's dangerous pregnancy, either God did it or the doctors were wrong...
You don;t believe in God, you don't believe in luck... What do you believe in? :D And as for why I'm here... well, that's a story for another time. ;)
You'll find that there are a lot of people who don't believe in superstitions of any kind here.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 03:04:38 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:01:20 AM
No such thing as luck.
Deep down the cogs are turning and that's why you're here. Deep down you know reality but can't quite accept it yet.
Don't forget to ponder what I just said about your hypocrisy regarding your mom's dangerous pregnancy, either God did it or the doctors were wrong...
You don;t believe in God, you don't believe in luck... What do you believe in? :D And as for why I'm here... well, that's a story for another time. ;)
I believe in nothing. Should I believe in something?
I know what I know and I don't know other stuff.
I have opinions, but are they beliefs? Not really. Like when I said I struggle to see the human race lasting another 100 years due to population increase, that's not something I
believe because to believe is to accept something as true. I think it is possible that the human race could destroy itself in 100 years, but equally I could be well wrong. It's just an opinion, not a belief.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 12, 2011, 03:08:47 AM
You'll find that there are a lot of people who don't believe in superstitions of any kind here.
Got it. So, no God, no luck, no ghosts/spirits/demons... Anything I'm missing?
And NAC, in you're opinions, is there anything that's not based on fact?
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 03:12:21 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 12, 2011, 03:08:47 AM
You'll find that there are a lot of people who don't believe in superstitions of any kind here.
Got it. So, no God, no luck, no ghosts/spirits/demons... Anything I'm missing?
And NAC, in you're opinions, is there anything that's not based on fact?
No. How can anything that is real NOT be based in fact? ???
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 03:12:21 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 12, 2011, 03:08:47 AM
You'll find that there are a lot of people who don't believe in superstitions of any kind here.
Got it. So, no God, no luck, no ghosts/spirits/demons... Anything I'm missing?
Well, everyone is different, but that sounds about right. "Fate" and "destiny" and those kinds of things also come to mind.
UFOs are debatable, though. ;D
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:15:18 AM
No. How can anything that is real NOT be based in fact? ???
What fact is love based on? And opinions aren't necessarily real...
No fate, no destiny. I think I got it.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 03:17:29 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:15:18 AM
No. How can anything that is real NOT be based in fact? ???
What fact is love based on? And opinions aren't necessarily real...
No fate, no destiny. I think I got it.
Love is a feeling based on human emotion, and emotion is an observed fact.
An opinion is not a "real" thing, as in undeniably and universally accepted, nor is it certain to be correct or true. Therefore to have an opinion is not reliant on fact.
Real things rely on fact.
Tell me something universally accepted as real that has no basis in fact. I'll give you a decade to think of something.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:22:20 AM
Tell me something universally accepted as real that has no basis in fact. I'll give you a decade to think of something.
I'm pretty sure that's impossible, considering that there are things that are based on fact that people don't believe.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 03:29:02 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:22:20 AM
Tell me something universally accepted as real that has no basis in fact. I'll give you a decade to think of something.
I'm pretty sure that's impossible, considering that there are things that are based on fact that people don't believe.
If some people choose not to acknowledge real things based on fact, that is their problem and makes reality or the facts it's based on no different. It's irrelevant.
I asked you to tell me of a real thing not based in fact. You agree it's impossible, and it is. We're making some progress I feel.
I await one of the 7 billion people on earth to show me a fact to back up that their god (whichever one) is real. There are no facts to base the reality of god on, because god is not real.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:40:00 AM
I asked you to tell me of a real thing not based in fact. You agree it's impossible, and it is. We're making some progress I feel.
I await one of the 7 billion people on earth to show me a fact to back up that their god (whichever one) is real. There are no facts to base the reality of god on, because god is not real.
You said to tell you of a universally accepted reality that is not based on fact. I can't do that. I can tell you plenty things people find to be their personal reality that isn't based on fact. But I don't think there is really anything that is universally accepted. (I've gotten arguments on what 2+2 equals)
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 03:45:54 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:40:00 AM
I asked you to tell me of a real thing not based in fact. You agree it's impossible, and it is. We're making some progress I feel.
I await one of the 7 billion people on earth to show me a fact to back up that their god (whichever one) is real. There are no facts to base the reality of god on, because god is not real.
You said to tell you of a universally accepted reality that is not based on fact. I can't do that. I can tell you plenty things people find to be their personal reality that isn't based on fact. But I don't think there is really anything that is universally accepted. (I've gotten arguments on what 2+2 equals)
First of all, personal reality is not always actual reality. Someone's personal reality could be the biggest delusion on earth and not at all real.
Nobody in the modern world will dispute that televisions are real. They are real and based in fact. The facts are we know who the pioneers were, how they developed and built them, what with, and so on etc.
A TV is a "real" thing, that nobody can deny. If they do deny that TV's are real, then they are wrong. Or mental. Or both. And TV's still remain real.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:55:45 AM
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 03:45:54 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:40:00 AM
I asked you to tell me of a real thing not based in fact. You agree it's impossible, and it is. We're making some progress I feel.
I await one of the 7 billion people on earth to show me a fact to back up that their god (whichever one) is real. There are no facts to base the reality of god on, because god is not real.
You said to tell you of a universally accepted reality that is not based on fact. I can't do that. I can tell you plenty things people find to be their personal reality that isn't based on fact. But I don't think there is really anything that is universally accepted. (I've gotten arguments on what 2+2 equals)
First of all, personal reality is not actual reality. Someone's personal reality could be the biggest delusion on earth and not at all real.
Nobody in the modern world will dispute that televisions are real. They are real and based in fact. The facts are we know who the pioneers were, how they developed and built them, what with, and so on etc.
A TV is a "real" thing, that nobody can deny. If they do deny that TV's are real, then they are wrong. Or mental. Or both. And TV's still remain real.
I thought we were talking philosophy/religion, not objects. But anyhow, yes, I see your point.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 03:58:56 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:55:45 AM
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 03:45:54 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:40:00 AM
I asked you to tell me of a real thing not based in fact. You agree it's impossible, and it is. We're making some progress I feel.
I await one of the 7 billion people on earth to show me a fact to back up that their god (whichever one) is real. There are no facts to base the reality of god on, because god is not real.
You said to tell you of a universally accepted reality that is not based on fact. I can't do that. I can tell you plenty things people find to be their personal reality that isn't based on fact. But I don't think there is really anything that is universally accepted. (I've gotten arguments on what 2+2 equals)
First of all, personal reality is not actual reality. Someone's personal reality could be the biggest delusion on earth and not at all real.
Nobody in the modern world will dispute that televisions are real. They are real and based in fact. The facts are we know who the pioneers were, how they developed and built them, what with, and so on etc.
A TV is a "real" thing, that nobody can deny. If they do deny that TV's are real, then they are wrong. Or mental. Or both. And TV's still remain real.
I thought we were talking philosophy/religion, not objects. But anyhow, yes, I see your point.
When you talk about a real thing, an object is just as good an example, and simpler to use.
Anyhow, 4am here, I should have been in bed hours ago, I'll leave you to mull over the weird rational world of atheism.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 04:02:25 AM
When you talk about a real thing, an object is just as good an example, and simpler to use.
Anyhow, 4am here, I should have been in bed hours ago, I'll leave you to mull over the weird rational world of atheism.
Alrighty then. Morning. :) It's only 11 here.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:40:00 AM
I await one of the 7 billion people on earth to show me a fact to back up that their god (whichever one) is real. There are no facts to base the reality of god on, because god is not real.
But there may be realities for which we currently have no facts. We don't know everything. It may be that we find a fact tomorrow upon which we can base the knowledge of God. You may be justified in not believing in God, but, as has been previously observed, you are not rationally justified in claiming to "know" that God is not real.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 12, 2011, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:40:00 AM
I await one of the 7 billion people on earth to show me a fact to back up that their god (whichever one) is real. There are no facts to base the reality of god on, because god is not real.
But there may be realities for which we currently have no facts. We don't know everything. It may be that we find a fact tomorrow upon which we can base the knowledge of God. You may be justified in not believing in God, but, as has been previously observed, you are not rationally justified in claiming to "know" that God is not real.
As an Atheist, this is pretty much exactly my worldview. I'm open to the idea that something "god-ish" could exist or be discovered, I just don't find anything that I've seen presented by fallible, self-interested humans to be convincing or demonstrable. Most theists just show me that they REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to believe that they have the right answers, but that's not a convincing argument for why they do.
As Voltaire said, "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd" :P
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 12, 2011, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:40:00 AM
I await one of the 7 billion people on earth to show me a fact to back up that their god (whichever one) is real. There are no facts to base the reality of god on, because god is not real.
But there may be realities for which we currently have no facts. We don't know everything.
Maybe.
QuoteIt may be that we find a fact tomorrow upon which we can base the knowledge of God.
This is not going to happen because we made god up.
QuoteYou may be justified in not believing in God
Knowing of no god.
Quotebut, as has been previously observed, you are not rationally justified in claiming to "know" that God is not real.
It's perfectly rational to claim to know that god is not real.
I know god is not real in the same way I know that unicorns and flying pink elephants are not real. Why can you not simply accept I can know this?
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 04:28:09 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 12, 2011, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:40:00 AM
I await one of the 7 billion people on earth to show me a fact to back up that their god (whichever one) is real. There are no facts to base the reality of god on, because god is not real.
But there may be realities for which we currently have no facts. We don't know everything.
Maybe.
QuoteIt may be that we find a fact tomorrow upon which we can base the knowledge of God.
This is not going to happen because we made god up.
QuoteYou may be justified in not believing in God
Knowing of no god.
Quotebut, as has been previously observed, you are not rationally justified in claiming to "know" that God is not real.
It's perfectly rational to claim to know that god is not real.
I know god is not real in the same way I know that unicorns and flying pink elephants are not real. Why can you not simply accept I can know this?
UNICORNS ARE REAL! I
demand you to take that back! And while you know that there is no God, might I ask what would you do if one day proof was found of God's existence? Just curious.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 07:44:12 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 04:28:09 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 12, 2011, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 03:40:00 AM
I await one of the 7 billion people on earth to show me a fact to back up that their god (whichever one) is real. There are no facts to base the reality of god on, because god is not real.
But there may be realities for which we currently have no facts. We don't know everything.
Maybe.
QuoteIt may be that we find a fact tomorrow upon which we can base the knowledge of God.
This is not going to happen because we made god up.
QuoteYou may be justified in not believing in God
Knowing of no god.
Quotebut, as has been previously observed, you are not rationally justified in claiming to "know" that God is not real.
It's perfectly rational to claim to know that god is not real.
I know god is not real in the same way I know that unicorns and flying pink elephants are not real. Why can you not simply accept I can know this?
UNICORNS ARE REAL! I demand you to take that back! And while you know that there is no God, might I ask what would you do if one day proof was found of God's existence? Just curious.
I would apologise to everybody I ever offended by claiming there is no god, and then I would go to hell because even if he suddenly became real (which will never happen because he is made up) I would not want to suck up to him, he's horrible.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 12, 2011, 09:47:56 PM
Quote from: not your typical... on November 12, 2011, 07:44:12 PM
UNICORNS ARE REAL! I demand you to take that back! And while you know that there is no God, might I ask what would you do if one day proof was found of God's existence? Just curious.
I would apologize to everybody I ever offended by claiming there is no god, and then I would go to hell because even if he suddenly became real (which will never happen because he is made up) I would not want to suck up to him, he's horrible.
You still have to take back the denial of the existence of unicorns... And if He is real, that means He gave you life. Now, if you ask me, that's a damn good reason to suck up to anybody... but maybe that's just me.
My mother and father gave me life, god can go and fuck himself.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 13, 2011, 07:56:34 PM
My mother and father gave me life, god can go and fuck himself.
I thought you didn't believe god existed? So how can he fuck himself? :D ;)
Quote from: Tank on November 13, 2011, 07:58:41 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 13, 2011, 07:56:34 PM
My mother and father gave me life, god can go and fuck himself.
I thought you didn't believe god existed? So how can he fuck himself? :D ;)
Well it's based on god being proven real :)
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 13, 2011, 08:01:35 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 13, 2011, 07:58:41 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 13, 2011, 07:56:34 PM
My mother and father gave me life, god can go and fuck himself.
I thought you didn't believe god existed? So how can he fuck himself? :D ;)
Well it's based on god being proven real :)
Well then.... Wow........ If God was proven real and he read that, he'd probably smite you... Do me a favor and don't stand next to me. :)
Quote from: not your typical... on November 13, 2011, 08:04:35 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 13, 2011, 08:01:35 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 13, 2011, 07:58:41 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 13, 2011, 07:56:34 PM
My mother and father gave me life, god can go and fuck himself.
I thought you didn't believe god existed? So how can he fuck himself? :D ;)
Well it's based on god being proven real :)
Well then.... Wow........ If God was proven real and he read that, he'd probably smite you... Do me a favor and don't stand next to me. :)
But it would entierly depend on which god were proved real. It is way more likely to be a god we have never heard of. The universe is a big place with probably millions of intelligent speices spread very widly throughout it. It's very egotistical to presume anybody on Earth knows god. We could al be in for a big shock if God ever were proved to exist ;D
Quote from: Tank on November 13, 2011, 08:14:45 PM
But it would entierly depend on which god were proved real. It is way more likely to be a god we have never heard of. The universe is a big place with probably millions of intelligent speices spread very widly throughout it. It's very egotistical to presume anybody on Earth knows god. We could al be in for a big shock if God ever were proved to exist ;D
Well, yeah, but I still think he'd have the power to smite people. And NAC would just happen to be one of those people.
Quote from: Tank on November 13, 2011, 08:14:45 PM
We could al be in for a big shock if God ever were proved to exist
He undoubtedly would not be like anything we have ever imagined. Again, for someone to claim that they either know God exists or know that he doesn't, is simply irrational. You can have thoughts, beliefs, inclinations, leanings, strong feelings, etc., but to claim knowledge is simply a mistake.
Once again, I know there is no god. It's a pile of made up bunk.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 13, 2011, 08:18:55 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 13, 2011, 08:14:45 PM
But it would entierly depend on which god were proved real. It is way more likely to be a god we have never heard of. The universe is a big place with probably millions of intelligent speices spread very widly throughout it. It's very egotistical to presume anybody on Earth knows god. We could al be in for a big shock if God ever were proved to exist ;D
Well, yeah, but I still think he'd have the power to smite people. And NAC would just happen to be one of those people.
Yeeaah, there are a whole lotta people out there who probably deserve "smitting" and will never get it. And there are a whole lot of good people out there who get some really shitty deals in life. In my experience, it's all pretty random as to what happens to whom.
I'd like to start off with apologizing for not coming back to for such a long time. I'm trying to keep on this forum. So the last thing I asked about was abortion. I read through most of the post and it seems like more are for abortions then against. Also the conflict of pro-life vs. Pro-choice. I don't think anyone should just say pro-life or pro-choice its so left vs. Right. I'm a man of sticking to the one topic straight forward pro-abortion or anti-abortion and I am pro-abortion. I think women and couples should have a choice to keep a child or not. If they make the decision themselves it should be no one else's business. They should not have to feel ashamed or embarrassed. Or even fear others around them, if people hear about it that they will be shunned away. So that's Stev13jay's opinion.
Quote from: Stev13jay on November 28, 2011, 11:35:03 PMI think women and couples should have a choice to keep a child or not. If they make the decision themselves it should be no one else's business. They should not have to feel ashamed or embarrassed. Or even fear others around them, if people hear about it that they will be shunned away. So that's Stev13jay's opinion.
I make a point to bring up that I'm pro-abortion in any conversation about it that I'm a part of. I find it absurd and cruel that women should be forced into a life altering event that could not only destroy their chance at happiness, but bring a child into the world with often very terrible parents. I'm not honestly sure I could do it myself, but to take something you have an opinion on and decide that it should be enforced nationwide, or that anyone not agreeing with you is somehow less of a person, is insane.
Quote from: KingPhilip on November 29, 2011, 12:12:25 AM
I make a point to bring up that I'm pro-abortion in any conversation about it that I'm a part of.
I like to distinguish "pro-freedom" from "pro-choice" and certainly "pro-abortion." I can't say I'm in favor of abortion - it does end life at some level. But the proper person to make the decision should be the moral agent most intimately involved with the particular circumstances, and that certainly is the pregnant woman in the case of the abortion debate. She's in a better situation to make the free, moral choice about what happens with her pregnancy than any government is. So, I'm generally in favor of personal freedom, unless there is some overriding social interest. Generally, the scheme set out in Roe v. Wade seems logical to me.
Hm, I can see how "pro-freedom" is a bit better. It certainly has a better ring to it anyway. I rarely use the term "pro-abortion" it's usually "pro-life", as the former really does sound like you just happen to enjoy abortions. XD
My ex-girlfriend had a huge issue with abortion, and she was one of those people that wanted the rest of the world to follow the anti-abortion laws. When pressed for why the mother shouldn't choose she told me that it "is just wrong" and any decent mother would agree, so those that don't shouldn't get a choice. What's funny is that she was perfectly happy with everything else, pro-gay laws, pro-minority, separation of church and state, etc. So I guess even if we can get past all the other issues we have, it seems abortion will always be a problem because to those who see it as wrong, it is just absolutely wrong without question.
Quote from: KingPhilip on November 29, 2011, 01:56:09 PM
Hm, I can see how "pro-freedom" is a bit better. It certainly has a better ring to it anyway. I rarely use the term "pro-abortion" it's usually "pro-life", as the former really does sound like you just happen to enjoy abortions. XD
My ex-girlfriend had a huge issue with abortion, and she was one of those people that wanted the rest of the world to follow the anti-abortion laws. When pressed for why the mother shouldn't choose she told me that it "is just wrong" and any decent mother would agree, so those that don't shouldn't get a choice. What's funny is that she was perfectly happy with everything else, pro-gay laws, pro-minority, separation of church and state, etc. So I guess even if we can get past all the other issues we have, it seems abortion will always be a problem because to those who see it as wrong, it is just absolutely wrong without question.
People are always going to see this issue differently, which is another reason why it should be left to the individuals involved.
So I want to move onto a new topic. The occupy movement, I've talked to many people and not many have the same opinion as me. So I want to see what everyone on here has to say. I think they need to keep up the protest and keep fighting for the rights we all deserve. Like I've mentioned previously I am a Army vet, I want everyone to know that I support the protesters. They have the right of freedom of speech and freedom to assemble peacefully. I can't say 100%I of the protesters are peaceful I can only say that it looks rowdy but still peaceful. One of my best friends has been at occupy st. Louis since day three and they've been peaceful but on veterans day they got threatened with eviction from the park they are at. My friend who is also an army vet confronted the mayor about the eviction and the infringement on all of there american rights as citizens and that made it on the st. Louis news. But im getting away from my point of the occupy movement is peaceful andbthe government is making it violent and violating there rights. These people may all have different reasons to protest but it needs to open peoples eyes so we can all see that there needs to be change in america and around the world. We as citizens have the job to govern the government, when the governments out of line we need to put them in there place. They work for us not the other way around. We should not be sacrificing are freedoms for protection. So what does everyone elseposted think? (Just so everyone knows I've wrote thisnover 2 days on my phone and didn't reread everything so im sorry if it doesn't make since.)
Honestly I support the Occupy Wherever protest, but I believe it's ultimately futile. There are always protests and few things ever happen because of them. Yes this one is very large and yes it's widespread, but we've seen no change so far other than mass arrests and police suspensions. I hope they keep on going and eventually cause some sort of improvement, but the overall disorganization and lack of firm demands/goals for the protests leads me to believe nothing will really come of it.